Find teaming partners

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the 10-firm cap, the ranking logic and fallback order, that contact details are absent, that award records may be incomplete, and that ai_subcontracting is AI-generated and must be labeled. It also gives a hard usage rule ('Never call a firm the incumbent'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the trigger condition leads, followed by behavior, caveats, and exclusions. Most sentences earn their place, though it is on the long side and the markdown-link formatting instruction is a slightly jarring insertion mid-paragraph.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it instead covers everything else an agent needs: fallback ordering, ranking, data-quality caveats, labeling rules, and the required URL formatting. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the detailed role enum semantics. The description's 'Pass the id from a search result, and optionally role' largely restates the schema; the example id="117412688283576625" adds a small format cue. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find teaming partners... firms that won similar awards in the same state or at the same agency') with a precise scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming search_awards and get_company as separate concerns. An agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants possible teaming partners... for one opportunity') and closes with explicit exclusions naming the alternatives ('Do not use for... search_awards... get_company... or for job postings'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.